The Rebirth of the TPP

When Donald Trump, in one of his first acts as president, announced that the US would not participate in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), many assumed that the mega-regional trade deal was dead. But such assumptions may have been premature.

TOKYO – When Donald Trump, in one of his first acts as president, announced that the United States would not participate in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), many assumed that the mega-regional trade deal was dead. But such assumptions may have been premature.

The TPP was originally envisioned as a rules-based economic area spanning the Pacific and comprising 12 member countries – Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the US, and Vietnam – which collectively account for about 40% of the world economy. The negotiations, which lasted five years, were undertaken with great care and diligence. In Japan’s case, for example, the negotiators, headed by Akira Amari, then the minister of state for economic and fiscal policy, worked day and night to assuage opposition by various sectors of the domestic economy (say, rice growers) and to secure favorable outcomes.

Trump’s announcement in January, which came just as the deal was set to be ratified, certainly shook the endeavor at its core. But many relevant players, eager to prevent the TPP from crumbling, soon began to discuss moving forward without the US.

For the foreseeable future, it seems likely to me that the 11 nations that remain committed to the TPP are better off without U.S. participation -- and that those 11 should seize this as a once-in-a-generation opportunity. The future belongs to those who can cooperate to advance their common interests, and not to those who would isolate themselves

The American Century is over. As the proverb goes, as one door closes, others open.

You can remain committed to ignoring reality and the evidence before your eyes if it helps you sleep better Hank -- many of Trump's supporters do. But willful ignorance carries a high price tag -- especially for those who indulge in it.

You haven't the faintest clue what the American Century signifies to me. And that's another characteristic that typifies Donald Trump's afraid-of-the-world supporters.

The mistake Professor Hamada makes at the end of this article is in assuming that withdrawal from one bad deal signifies a policy of isolationism. When this administration has already shown it intends not to isolate, but to negotiate, one-on-one. Even Professor Hamada notes this elsewhere in his article, and concedes the difficulty predicting which path is superior.

If the "American Century" to your mind signifies that large scale siphoning off of the wealth produced by the American middle class to the rest of the world, then yes, that century seems to have come to a close.

The new century we are at the dawn of may just promise to be one in which America regains its former prosperity. That prosperity it owned in the decades before it became policeman and meal trough for the world, and squandered trillions on do-nothing wars and massively negative trade deals to bolster economic development of Asia, Africa, and Europe.

Is there any use in hoping that without the U.S., we might actually get a deal that benefits people instead of just big corporations? One that actually breaks down trade barriers and does not constrain governments from acting on environmental issues or give these companies patent protection to everything in sight forever?

The underlying question here Paul, in my view, is whether or not you can trust your government to negotiate a multilateral trade agreement that benefits the majority of its people. Losing faith in globalism and trade agreements is one thing -- but losing trust in your own government to act responsibly in the common interest is something entirely different -- and entirely more important to the future of a democratic state.

In the U.S., the answer to my question appeasr to be "no," which is a highly meaningful comment on the state of the nation, summarized by the election of Donald Trump.

Unlikely. These are complex, multifaceted negotiations. Impossible to get a full grasp on. So countries end up going to bat for whatever sectors of their industry their advisors tell them to go to bat for. And how do they know which sectors to go to bat for? Whichever sectors can afford the best-connected lobbyists.

There is no lobby for "the people." Governments are supposed to fulfill that role themselves ("lobbyist for the people"). Sadly, both in today's world and throughout history, it is rare to find a nation that truly puts its own people first as a collective.

New Comment

It appears that you have not yet updated your first and last name. If you would like to update your name, please do so here.

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

PS OnPoint

The Mueller report in America, along with reports of interference in this week’s European Parliament election, has laid bare the lengths to which Russia will go to undermine Western democracies. But whether Westerners have fully awoken to the threat is an open question.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.